Disposed

Nirmal Singh v. Sgpc

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Aug 2018CWP/16708/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ directing the respondent to decide its claim for retirement dues within two months and pay them within 30 days if found due. The single judge disposed of the petition without expressing an opinion on merits, directing the respondent to consider the legal notice.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's claim for retirement dues within two months and make payment within 30 days if found due.

Nirmal Singh Vs Sgpc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

CWP No.16708 OF 2018

¶2

--1--

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.16708 OF 2018 DECIDED ON: AUGUST 16, 2018

¶5

NIRMAL SINGH

¶6

.....PETITIONER..

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE

¶9

.....RESPONDENT..

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH

¶11

Present: Ms. Vanita Sapra Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

JASPAL SINGH, J

¶14

By virtue of instant petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent to pay the retiral dues to him as ordered by Hon'ble President vide letter dated 19.03.2018 (P-6).

¶15

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though legal notice dated 19.02.2018 (P-4) was duly served upon the respondent but till date no conscious decision has been taken. He further submits that petitioner feels satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondent to decide aforesaid legal notice, within a stipulated period.

¶16

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, instant petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent to consider the claim of

¶17

SONIKA the petitioner put forth by him in legal notice (P-4) particularly, in the light of 2018.08.21 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

--2--

¶19

CWP No.16708 OF 2018

¶20

letter dated 19.03.2018 (P-6) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If, the concerned authority comes to the conclusion that petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed through legal notice, to make the payment within a period of next 30 days.

¶21

However, if the petitioner still feels aggrieved against any of the order passed by the concerned authority, he shall be at liberty to approach this Court as well as to have recourse to the other remedies available under law.

¶22

AUGUST 16, 2018 (JASPAL SINGH) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No

¶23

SONIKA 2018.08.21 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Nirmal Singh v. Sgpc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Singh v. Sgpc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Dass Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Yudhister Yadav Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kala Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

R.M.P. Jaiswal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Budh Lal Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors.

Kirpal Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.